(Original post by jfellow)
If Brexit is stopped, will Britain cease to be a democracy?

Britain is NOT a democracy, hasn't been for a long time. The 2-party political system has been a sham for years. Whether you voted for Conservatives or Labour made no difference, you were always voting for the EU.

If BrExit is stopped it will merely demonstrate categorically to the Sheeple that they have been living in a dream and that there never was democracy and they've been duped most of their voting life.

What that will do I am not yet certain of, but some element of violent revolution is surely inevitable.

The posturing by ALL parties on BrExit is merely finding the best way to fudge the whole thing whilst pacifying the masses and avoiding revolution.

The EU stooges, working from within, most of them Common Purpose, freemasons etc, spent some 40 years getting the UK into the EU by stealth, fraud and skulduggery imo. They are not about to give up all that work and effort just because of a referendum. There is no way they will allow us to properly leave the EU, no way no how. All just one circus show to try and pacify the masses.

You dislike the man because of his actions, but don't dislike other people who've taken the same or similar actions. So there must be something else, something particular to Soros that you dislike... what is it?

I don't know what you mean by 'broke the BoE' - as I understand it, Soros bet against the £ and made a lot of money. Whatever adverse consequences it had, he's not culpable - that's capitalism buddy. Indeed, you could argue that in the long run it was good for the British economy. But this is neither here nor there, I want to know why you/the hard right are so fixated on Soros?

"The cynical use of the accusation of anti-Semitism to deflect criticism away from the Remainer ideology is awful – and dangerous. First because it is so transparently censorious, the aim being to depict any concern to protect Brexit as a manifestation of racism and hatred. Just as they said the idea of Brexit was racist, and the vote for Brexit was racist, now they claim that criticism of the opponents of Brexit is racist. They have cheapened the category of racism beyond repair, using it not to discuss the problem of racial hatred in society but to demonise their opponents in the battle over the EU. They have rendered racism utterly meaningless, making it nothing more than a censorious weapon with which they might delegitimise and silence political opinions they disagree with." http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...3#.WoBLlJOFiRv

(Original post by Snufkin)
So you don't think attacking Soros is both hypocritical and anti-Semitic?

Why would it be anti Semitic to criticise someone for what they are doing, and believing what they are doing is morally wrong? I don’t think many people care that is Jewish, but that doesn’t put him above criticism ( especially in this case)

(Original post by Snufkin)
So you don't think attacking Soros is both hypocritical and anti-Semitic?

"Attacks" alone says nothing, some people see legitimate criticisms as "attacks", further on the anti-semitism front are similar "attacks" being made against those not of Jewish decent because if so anti-semitism is a load of BS, for instance are the people you are thinking of also "attacking" Gina Miller?

(Original post by jfellow)
"The cynical use of the accusation of anti-Semitism to deflect criticism away from the Remainer ideology is awful – and dangerous. First because it is so transparently censorious, the aim being to depict any concern to protect Brexit as a manifestation of racism and hatred. Just as they said the idea of Brexit was racist, and the vote for Brexit was racist, now they claim that criticism of the opponents of Brexit is racist. They have cheapened the category of racism beyond repair, using it not to discuss the problem of racial hatred in society but to demonise their opponents in the battle over the EU. They have rendered racism utterly meaningless, making it nothing more than a censorious weapon with which they might delegitimise and silence political opinions they disagree with." http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...3#.WoBLlJOFiRv

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
"Attacks" alone says nothing, some people see legitimate criticisms as "attacks", further on the anti-semitism front are similar "attacks" being made against those not of Jewish decent because if so anti-semitism is a load of BS, for instance are the people you are thinking of also "attacking" Gina Miller?

(Original post by CountBrandenburg)
Why would it be anti Semitic to criticise someone for what they are doing, and believing what they are doing is morally wrong? I don’t think many people care that is Jewish, but that doesn’t put him above criticism ( especially in this case)

Jfellow, you realise you've quoted the man who thinks victims of Jimmy Savile / sexual abuse victims in general should keep it to themselves. He has no credibility.

It isn't cynical to point out the very obvious anti-Semitic undertones in the Telegraph article, nor is it an understatement to say that Soros is being attacked (yes, Jammy, attacked) - Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban has engaged in an extraordinarily vitriolic hate and media campaign against Soros, and alt-right and far-right organisations from Russia to America have spread slanderous conspiracy theories about him.

By all means disagree with what Soros is doing, CountBrandenburg, but he is not the only billionaire non-resident to take an interest in Brexit. If Soros is "morally wrong" then so are Robert Mercer, Frederick and David Barclay, and others. This article might help you understand why the Telegraph article was anti-Semitic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.835e5a7d9243

(Original post by Snufkin)
Jfellow, you realise you've quoted the man who thinks victims of Jimmy Savile / sexual abuse victims in general should keep it to themselves. He has no credibility.

It isn't cynical to point out the very obvious anti-Semitic undertones in the Telegraph article, nor is it an understatement to say that Soros is being attacked (yes, Jammy, attacked) - Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban has engaged in an extraordinarily vitriolic hate and media campaign against Soros, and alt-right and far-right organisations from Russia to America have spread slanderous conspiracy theories about him.

By all means disagree with what Soros is doing, CountBrandenburg, but he is not the only billionaire non-resident to take an interest in Brexit. If Soros is "morally wrong" then so are Robert Mercer, Frederick and David Barclay, and others. This article might help you understand why the Telegraph article was anti-Semitic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.835e5a7d9243

Would you like to tell us all what part of the article makes it anti-Semitic? Also you might want to tell the editors they're antisemitic so they can stop criticising antisemitism and stop publishing comments piece by Jews.

I know you don't read the telegraph because you might get too scared by opposing views, so instead answer me this: Is Gina Miller a Jew?

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Would you like to tell us all what part of the article makes it anti-Semitic? Also you might want to tell the editors they're antisemitic so they can stop criticising antisemitism and stop publishing comments piece by Jews.

I know you don't read the telegraph because you might get too scared by opposing views, so instead answer me this: Is Gina Miller a Jew?

The headline: "George Soros, the man who 'broke the Bank of England', backing secret plot to thwart Brexit" - it is not a plot and it is not secret, but this language feeds directly into the 'shadowy international Jewish banker pulling the stings' narrative which is at the core of anti-Semitism (indeed, the Daily Mail routinely calls Soros a 'puppeteer' - now it seems the Telegraph is joining in, if in a slightly more subtle way). The subtext is clear, if you genuinely can't see that then I'm worried.

I have no idea if Gina Miller is Jewish or not. The article didn't attack Miller, it went after Soros, even though he didn't found this campaign and is not their main donor. So again I ask why, why go after Soros and not Miller? As James O'Brien rightly says, "for a lot of far right propaganda sites 'Soros' has become synonymous with 'Jews' as a way of smuggling anti-Semitic scaremongering under the radar.", it is frankly inconceivable that the Telegraph didn't know that.

(Original post by Snufkin)
The headline: "George Soros, the man who 'broke the Bank of England', backing secret plot to thwart Brexit" - it is not a plot and it is not secret, but this language feeds directly into the 'shadowy international Jewish banker pulling the stings' narrative which is at the core of anti-Semitism (indeed, the Daily Mail routinely calls Soros a 'puppeteer' - now it seems the Telegraph is joining in, if in a slightly more subtle way). The subtext is clear, if you genuinely can't see that then I'm worried.

I have no idea if Gina Miller is Jewish or not. The article didn't attack Miller, it went after Soros, even though he didn't found this campaign and is not their main donor. So again I ask why, why go after Soros and not Miller? As James O'Brien rightly says, "for a lot of far right propaganda sites 'Soros' has become synonymous with 'Jews' as a way of smuggling anti-Semitic scaremongering under the radar.", it is frankly inconceivable that the Telegraph didn't know that.

You're just proving to us you are still full of ****, or completely oblivious to the world around you, or I suspect most likely filter out what doesn't agree with you because the telegraph did "go after miller", oh and if you're referring to it with regards to this story you will find that Miller is also against it.

It's also a bit of a bizzare argument for you to say that the telegraph is anti-semitic for writing a story that is negative about somebody who anti-semites see as the personification of "international Jewry", that is a truly absurd argument.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You're just proving to us you are still full of ****, or completely oblivious to the world around you, or I suspect most likely filter out what doesn't agree with you because the telegraph did "go after miller", oh and if you're referring to it with regards to this story you will find that Miller is also against it.

It's also a bit of a bizzare argument for you to say that the telegraph is anti-semitic for writing a story that is negative about somebody who anti-semites see as the personification of "international Jewry", that is a truly absurd argument.

This is your rebuttal? You have, like Chaz254, chosen not to answer my question 'why go after Sorors?' (and no, the Telegraph did not go after Miller, it was an attack on Soros pure and simple).

I have already said that one is free to criticise Mr Soros. The issue is not that the Telegraph was negative about him (although, as I say, the fact they targeted him and not the organisation's founders is pretty suspect), it was their use of anti-Semitic tropes which tie directly into the conspiracy theories coming out of Poland, Hungary, Russia and various alt-right organisations which has laid them open to the accusation of antisemitism.

(Original post by shawn_o1)
Democracy was out the door ages ago. The people we elect don't have any real power these days, usually they're influenced by their donors. Like that Soros guy. He's like, **** the people, they don't matter.

I never get tired of people who would presumably proclaim themselves to be patriots misunderstanding the nature of our democracy. We're a representative, parliamentary democracy - we don't - and shouldn't - make policy based on plebiscite. This is true for aviation policy, and it's true of our relationship with Europe.

Here's the founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, on the nature of our democracy:

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

What an appalling article, too. There is no "secret plot" - evidenced most conspicuously by the existence of the article itself - and the fact that the article uses Hungary and Poland, where there are regular anti-Semitic attacks on Soros, as examples of why Soros is "not to be trusted", is disgusting.